In the entry for the week of 10-24 June 1940, The Spitfire Site discusses Italy’s declaration of war again France and Great Britain.  On the heals of the German battlefield victories, Benito Mussolini sought territorial gains from a weakened France.  Upon entering the war, Italian forces invaded the French Alps in hopes of conquering Provence.  During the interwar years, the French constructed a series of bunkers and firing positions that overlooked the mountain passes leading through the French Alps.  Such fortifications were on par, or superior, to those built by the Austrian-Hungarians during the Great War.  Reminiscent of the failed human wave attacks at Isonzo during the First World War, Italian forces suffered many casualties from the static enemy gun emplacements.  After nine days of combat, Italian forces acquired little ground and incurred 1,247 men dead and 2,631 wounded.¹  Italian solders were saved from frigid mountain temperatures and French munitions only by the capitulation of France to the Germans.  In that sense, the Italian invasion of France was a catastrophic failure.  Consequently, it seems that as of the Second World War, Italy had not learned the costly lessons of the Isonzo battles.

4th & 3rd-Century BC

Roman conquest of Italy

Ross Cowan writes on the tendency of Romans to decorate their homes with war trophies.

2nd-Century AD

An abbey with connections to the Romans and the Second World War? The Lost Fort offers a detailed history of Incholm Abbey and other sites neighboring the Firth of Forth.

16th-Century AD

Over at Marginalia there is an insightful post on Francis Stewart and his betrayal of his cousin Jame Stewart.

18th-Century AD

American Revolution

A King George’s War fort in the United States? Boston 1775 discusses the funding issues for this rare historical site.

British Soldiers, American Revolution recounts the fates of two British soldiers who served together and experienced the harsh reality of 18th-Century disease.

19th-Century AD

Mexican-American War

Blog 4 History argues that a wealth of knowledge awaits scholars who embark on a study of the Mexican-American War.

American Civil War

The 48th Pennsylvanian Infantry/Civil War Musings presents a letter from private who was eager to fight the Confederates.

Civil War Memory takes readers to the Antietam battlefield and discusses the value of blogging and confirms the existence of the Lost Cause in Sharpsburg, Maryland.

The brief and sad wartime experiences of Alfred DuBois, father of W.E.B DuBois, over at The Sable Arm.

20th-Century AD

First World War

Over at the Australian War Memorial, a series of short posts on Herbert Vincent Reynolds No. 622 First Field Ambulance, First AIF. Although the AWM series on Reynolds began back in February, March has had its fair share of posts. Throughout the series, readers are exposed to the experiences of an ANZAC soldier leading up to the infamous Gallipoli campaign. Here is the post for 14 March 1915. Be sure to read the rest.

Airminded examines the German bombing of Warrington Crescent, highlighting the effects of the attack on both property and social memory.

The CBC pays tribute to Canada’s last First World War veteran, John Babcock, who died at the ripe old age of 109.

Recently Geoff Robinson discussed the issues associated with teaching students about Australia’s participation in two world wars. Enjoy the clip from Gallipoli.

Second World War

The Daily History Blog elaborates on the pre-war activities of the Hitler Youth in Germany Great Britain.

The Aerodrome uses archival gems to discuss the issues that plagued Coalition air power.

Over at Thoughts on Military History, Ross endeavors to separate the popular media interpretations of Air Chief Marshall Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory from historical fact.

Battlefield Biker sheds some light on the plot to keep General Bernard Montgomery’s location a secret in the days leading up to D-Day.

Strange Maps pinpoints some of Germany’s schools named after infamous Nazis.

Vietnam War

Here at Thompson-Werk I offer some musings over the policies and events that contributed to America’s involvement in Vietnam.

Who does not adore American’s 37th president? Edge of the American West provides some of President Richard Nixon’s more colorful references to the Vietnam War.

After the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, U.S. Col. Harry Summers remarked to his North Vietnamese counterpart, “You know you never defeated us on the battlefield.” After a moment, the North Vietnamese officer replied: “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

Read the full article here.

Retreat, But No Surrender for Military History
After several decades of disappearing from college campuses, the study of military history is poised to make a comeback.

By David J. Koon

September 24, 2009

Outside academia, military history appears alive and well. The shelves of Barnes and Noble and Borders bookstores are coated with nonfiction works from biographies of General George Patton to analyses of Civil War infantry maneuvers. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Gods and Generals inundate cinema screens and television channels. And on college campuses in North Carolina and nationally, students line up for courses dealing with military history as soon as they become available.

But until recently, the field was on a slow march into scholarly obscurity. “While military history dominates the airwaves,” said Eastern Michigan University history professor Robert Citino a few years ago, “its academic footprint continues to shrink, and it has largely vanished from the curriculum of many of our elite universities.” John J. Miller in 2006 wrote in National Review that military history was in fact “dead” at many universities. “Where it isn’t dead and buried,” he added, “it’s either dying or under siege.” The New Republic, U.S. News and World Report, and other publications have echoed that sentiment.

Military history is a sub-discipline of history that focuses on the strategy, tactics, methods and operations of combatants in armed conflicts throughout human history. It is a traditional component of university history departments, although its emphasis varies tremendously among colleges and universities.

Miller and other conservative writers attributed the decline of military history to the rise of “tenured radicals” in universities. That is, the students of the 1960s who became professors in later decades found the study of war offensive and too aggressive for the curriculum of a “humanitarian” university. According to this thesis, military history was deliberately supplanted by multicultural or other politically correct studies.

An alternate view is that traditional military history’s popularity waned as other historical topics began to be explored. Beginning in the 1970s, historians became more interested in social history and, specifically, formerly neglected subjects such as African-American history, women’s history, and cultural history. Most who subscribe to this view don’t think military history’s abandonment was due to an agenda against it. Wayne Lee, an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that there wasn’t a “deliberate policy of killing these positions.” The study of military strategy and tactics was deemphasized simply by default.

Data from the American Historical Review support the idea that a shift occurred. In 1975, 2.4 percent of college history departments listed a military history specialist while only 1.1 percent had a specialist in women’s studies. By 2005, 8.9 percent of history departments listed a women’s studies specialist while the percentage of departments that had a military history expert shrank to 1.9 percent. This change could mean that there was a deliberate replacement of military history by social history—or it could merely reflect the shifting interests of history scholars.

And military history itself changed. In an effort to understand the social and cultural implications of war, military history redefined itself to encompass topics tangential to the battlefield. Historians still focused on the men who traded bullets but also looked at the wives, sons, and daughters who were left behind. “Military history,” explained Andrew Wiest of the University of Southern Mississippi, “began to include examining conflicts from new perspectives and historiographies,” generating “more complete and respected programs.” It wasn’t enough, however, to halt military history’s decline.

Many scholars—both within history departments and outside—began to regard traditional military history as “old news.” The field of drums and bugles is “finished,” they argue—there is nothing more to be gained from studying Jackson’s flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville or Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg. Mark Grimsley, a military historian at Ohio State University, was quoted by Inside Higher Ed as calling this attitude toward military history “incuriosity.”

But the incuriosity and rejection of military history may at last be ending. The past two to three years have seen a small surge in military history’s acceptance and respect in academia.

One change can be found in historical journals. Over the past thirty years, military history has been largely absent from the top historical journals. John Lynn, a well-known military historian now at Northwestern University, points out that during that period the American Historical Review, a highly respected history journal, “did not publish a single article focused on the conduct of the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the War of Louis XIV, the War of American Independence, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War, or World War II.” It did print a handful of articles about the atrocities of war, but not about the execution of the wars themselves.

But in March 2007, the Review published a fifty-page roundtable discussion of American military history that dealt with war in the context of its society. The Review has since published a number of articles directly and indirectly related to war. Other journals—including the Journal of American History—are also including more articles on the subject—even to the surprise of military historians.

It’s not just journals that suggest a revival. Other emerging trends hint that a corner has been turned.

This April, the long-empty professorial chair in military history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison was finally filled. Stephen E. Ambrose, the late historian and best-selling author, had donated $250,000 to his alma mater to commemorate his mentor, William Hesseltine. Before he died in 2002, Ambrose had doubled his initial contribution and pressured others, too, to support that professorship. Ambrose, a World War II specialist and author of Band of Brothers, was one of the most popular military historians of his generation. But the position he supported sat controversially vacant for years. The failure to find a suitable professor generated speculation that the study of military history was finished at Wisconsin.

Now the University of Wisconsin hired the respected West Point graduate and professor John W. Hall, a specialist in unconventional warfare—wars that involve forces other than governmental armies. Hall received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina. Wisconsin isn’t the only college hiring military historians this year. Duke University, Cornell University, Notre Dame University, and Sam Houston State University are searching for military specialists.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Peace, War, and Defense program, or PWAD, as it’s known on campus, has hired new faculty over the past three years as well. In fact, says Joseph Glatthaar, former head of the interdisciplinary curriculum, it is growing “like a rocket ship,” with enrollment up by 27% last year. The program focuses on the cultural impacts of war while also teaching traditional military history. It is nationally recognized, produces respected historians, and is bursting at the seams with undergraduate majors.

Military history seems to be gaining a stronghold at lesser-known universities. Many Ivy League and elite schools let their programs atrophy, creating a vacuum filled (most notably) by the University of Southern Mississippi and the University of North Texas. These institutions are leaders in the instruction of military history due to their “excellent programs,” says Wayne Lee of UNC-Chapel Hill.

As to precisely why military history is enjoying increased popularity, John Lynn thinks that it’s partly due to the fact that “the world has simply gotten nastier.” Terrorism, three wars, and international violence are all “staring you in the face” and “even humanists have to pay attention,” he says. This violence has granted military history greater traction in academia. “The past decade has been a decade of war,” says Frederick Schneid, a military historian at High Point University. “Historians are products of their environment, so the wars have, in a way, helped the profession.”

Just as surrender seemed imminent, military history has gathered unconventional reinforcements—less well-known colleges and, of all things, war and violence. These, along with broad student interest and an academy that now listens when military historians speak, may have positioned military history to climb out of the trenches and regain the field.

To view the original source, visit http://www.popecenter.org/news/article.html?id=2236.

Fortunately, my friend Mike beat me to the punch. Mike has written a solid response to the Republican Party’s new grassroots movement, in which he states:

The use of the tea party is a not-so-clever reference to the Boston tea party. History buffs will remember that our forefathers revolted against the British government demanding there be no taxation without representation. Too bad Republicans have representation, and they also oppose the inclusion of Washington D.C. in the U.S. Congress (the only area of the United States that is taxed without representation). If we ignore these inconvenient facts, then they might actually be onto something.

Be sure to read more of Mike’s thoughts at keatingreport.com.

So, Beck, Hannity, Rush, Norris, Coulter, et al.—next time you feel like going off on a rant about how militias are going to rise up and overthrow the U.S. government, and how you think Supreme Court justices and presidential candidiates ought to be poisoned, and about how you plan to help break up the Union because you don’t like our current administration. . . .

Thank a liberal for your right to say it.

You stupid douchebags.

Well said Andrew, I could not have put it any better.

Considering my friend is a political scientist, how does a historian fit in to all of this? I am inclined to believe that historians need to be just as political aware are our political scientist counterparts. Xenophobia transcends much of American, if not world, history. So it is no surprise that current fears of all things foreign is still used to get people to rally against anything perceived as different and new.  More critical, however, is the idea that maybe mankind is inclined to fear what it cannot fully understand. Maybe this is a mark of intelligence, or just some deep seeded primordial function that we have yet to evolve away from.